Cancer risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contaminated soils determined using bioassay-derived levels of benzo[a]pyrene equivalents

64Citations
Citations of this article
59Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Here we evaluate the excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) posed by 10 PAH-contaminated soils using (i) the currently advocated, targeted chemical-specific approach that assumes dose additivity for carcinogenic PAHs and (ii) a bioassay-based approach that employs the in vitro mutagenic activity of the soil fractions to determine levels of benzo[a]pyrene equivalents and, by extension, ELCR. Mutagenic activity results are presented in our companion paper.1 The results show that ELCR values for the PAH-containing fractions, determined using the chemical-specific approach, are generally (i.e., 8 out of 10) greater than those calculated using the bioassay-based approach; most are less than 5-fold greater. Only two chemical-specific ELCR estimates are less than their corresponding bioassay-derived values; differences are less than 10%. The bioassay-based approach, which permits estimation of ELCR without a priori knowledge of mixture composition, proved to be a useful tool to evaluate the chemical-specific approach. The results suggest that ELCR estimates for complex PAH mixtures determined using a targeted, chemical-specific approach are reasonable, albeit conservative. Calculated risk estimates still depend on contentious PEFs and cancer slope factors. Follow-up in vivo mutagenicity assessments will be required to validate the results and their relevance for human health risk assessment of PAH-contaminated soils.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lemieux, C. L., Long, A. S., Lambert, I. B., Lundstedt, S., Tysklind, M., & White, P. A. (2015). Cancer risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contaminated soils determined using bioassay-derived levels of benzo[a]pyrene equivalents. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(3), 1797–1805. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504466b

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free